For each topic area (e.g., Energy, Water, Waste, etc.), Verdis Group analyzed extensive data in order to benchmark UNK’s sustainability performance. Then, relying on peer analysis and other experience/expertise, Verdis Group recommended sustainability goals for 2025 and 2050. Sustainability stakeholders, including the UNK Sustainability Committee, then modified and approved the goals.
Topic Area | Baseline | Performance | % Change | Goal (2025) | Goal (2050) |
Energy weather-normalized source kBtu/ft2 |
206.2 2005 |
205.9 2014 |
-0.15% | -25% | *** |
Water gallons per weighted campus user |
25,961 avg FY 2012- 13-14 |
26,068 FY 2014 |
+0.41% | -15% | -40% |
Waste recycling rate |
12% fall 2014 |
- - - | 50% | 90% "zero waste" |
|
Purchasing percentage of Office Depot purchasing that is classified "green" |
20% Q1 2015 |
- - - | 50% | 75% | |
Mobility percentage of students and employees that use alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle commuting |
65% spring 2015 |
- - - | 75% | 85% | |
Emissions tons of eCO2 |
38,760 2005 |
28,902 2014 |
-25% | -35% | -100% "climate neutral" *** |
Academics percentage of all courses that focus on or include sustainability |
0.20% spring 2015 |
- - - | 40% | 75% | |
Campus Culture & Engagement sustainability engagement score |
43 / 100 spring 2015 |
- - - | 54 / 100 +25% |
86 / 100 +100% |
|
Campus Culture & Engagement percentage of available Campus Engagement STARS points |
N/A fall 2015 |
- - - | 100% | ||
*** Instead of specifying a longer–term energy goal (which is complex to predict), we will point to the longer–term emissions goal of reaching climate neutrality by 2050. This goal will naturally drive UNK’s energy consumption and energy profile in the most sustainable direction. |
In addition to performance measures and goals, the topic area sections contain prioritized lists of strategies. These lists are, perhaps, the most useful components of this plan. To arrive at these lists, key UNK stakeholders evaluated lengthy collections of potential sustainability strategies according to the following criteria:
In some topic area sections, we list the strategies as primary, secondary, or tertiary. In general, primary strategies scored highest in the evaluation exercise. Secondary and tertiary strategies scored less high; however, prioritizing the strategies was an inexact science and stakeholders should not feel obligated to implement the strategies sequentially.